As a teacher and scholar of rhetoric and the use of public words, I am loving the way the Democratic primary distinctions are revealing themselves. It appears that it is becoming a choice between words and action. Of course, it's not really that simple, those with nice words also have deeds, and those with records of accomplishment also are fine crafters of language. But, this exchange in last night's debate was telling.
Hillary:
So you know, words are not actions.
And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that....
Obama:
[T]he truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them, yes, we can. And that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers.
Now, for the record, I am no fan of bluster or sophistry absent substance and follow-through. However, Obama's speech is much more than that. Who accused of FDR ("We have nothing to fear..."), JFK ("Ask not..."), or MLK ("Ihave been to the mountaintop.") of empty speech, simply because they sounded good and galvanized a society around a shared vision of hope and nobility? What's so wrong with a leader rising up who can use the power of speech to make us all believe we can do better and become better? Sure, if there was incompetence or other suggestion of an inability to back it up, it would be nonsense; but there is no evidence of a weak mind or soft resolve in this case.
Ultimately, it's about cynicism. The jaded among us scoff and sneer at the pollyanna notions of transcendence and imagination, opting for the verifiable pragmatism of the known quantity. It is a fair and reasonable reaction. But, if we hope to leap ahead, rather than crawl, we have to believe.
I'm ready. Word.
17 comments:
So - New Hampshire last night. As we were discussing earlier today, not a crushing blow by any means. He's still got game. And those (17?) Edwards votes have to go somewhere. I'm thinking somewhere other than Hillary.
What I really came to say, though (in direct relation to your post), is words are not inconsequential. Contrary to the popular idiom, words can hurt us, they can cripple us, they can break the bones of our spirits, our souls. They can also inspire us, galvanize us, kick us in our collective pants, nurture us and soothe us.
They are, I think, expecially special when they're not misused, misponounced and otherwise stupidly stupified as sometimes happens with a certain person in a certain position of leadership. (And for once, I meant to misspell!)
Does youse ever wonder how that there certain person in a certain position might pronounce something like "I did not have sex with that woman."??
Yeah, he'd probably say he didn't inhale.
I do think that the quality which makes a man want to write and be read is essentially a desire for self-exposure and is masochistic. Like one of those guys who has a compulsion to take his thing out and show it on the street." - James Jones
So, now I understand the Reacher.
So, brother Reacher (I'm going to start calling you Breacher for short!), you started the new year out with a big bang of every-other-day posting.
You're now behind in the count by seven.
I like when your voice in the wilderness gets things all riled up around here. Helps cut down on the amount of time I spend arguing with the voices in my head...
I don't understand the point of the James Jones quote.
I'm not even sure who the James Jones being quoted is.
I'm thankful, though, for writers like Hemingway and Carver and Salinger and on and on and on.
James Jones? He's pretty inconsequential as far as I know.
Hearing some of the quotes from Dr. King's speech's yesterday made me think of this blog post. Hearing them at work, I might add, since only government workers, bankers and teachers get the day off (%*%@!*&%!*%!) for MLK day. Whatever you think about Martin, his "I have a dream" speech is one for the ages.
Hope you enjoyed your day off, Dr. Reacher. You can reach me at work if you need me.
Pardon me for not getting my thing out and showing it to you, but I have to say...
My youngest daughter and I spent part of our day Sunday standing about three feet from the place MLK was shot. We were touring the National Civil Rights Museum, which is built on to the old Lorraine Motel. You can't help but be moved when you hear the mans words, spoken the night before he was killed:
Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop.
And I don't mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
-----------------------------------
Sure, actions are important; but without words like that, without words that still have the capacity to give our souls flight, what are we but niggling bureaucrats moving the machine.
God bless you, Dr. King.
A fantastic read: Thomas Sowell
Most of the horrors of the 20th century — of which there were many — would not have been possible without demagoguery or misleading propaganda.
Most people have too much of a sense of decency and too much common sense to have gone along with those horrors unless someone found a way to turn off their thinking and turn on their emotions.
That is how Jim Jones led hundreds of people to their deaths at Jonestown. On a much larger scale, that is how Lenin created a regime of mass murder in Russia, how Hitler did the same thing in Germany and Mao in China.
Yet we seem to be no more aware of a need to be on guard against demagoguery today, in the 21st century, than those people who looked up with open-mouthed adulation at Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and at numerous other demagogues, large and small, around the world throughout the turbulent 20th century.
Many people find it thrilling that the mantra of "change" is ringing out across the land during this election year. But let's do what the politicians hope that we will never do — stop and think.
It is doubtful whether there is a single human being in this entire country who is 100 percent satisfied with everything that is going on. In other words, everybody is for change.
The real difference between liberals and conservatives is in which specific things they want to change, and in what way.
Milton Friedman was the leading conservative thinker of his time but he wanted to radically change the Federal Reserve, the school system, and the tax system, among other things.
Everybody is for change. They differ on the specifics. Uniting people behind the thoughtless mantra of "change" means asking for a blank check in exchange for rhetoric. That deal has been made many times in many places — and millions of people have lived to regret it.
It is not too much to ask politicians to talk specifics, instead of trying to sweep us along, turning off our minds and turning on our emotions, with soaring rhetoric.
Optimists might even hope for some logical consistency and hard facts.
Barack Obama says that he wants to "heal America and repair the world." One wonders what he will do for an encore and whether he will rest on the seventh day.
That we have so many people who are ready to be swept along by such rhetoric is a huge danger, for it means that the fate of this great nation is at risk from any skilled demagogue who comes along.
Barack Obama says that he wants to "heal" the country while at the same time promoting the idea that all sorts of people are victims for whom he will fight.
Being divisive while proclaiming unity is something you can do only in the world of rhetoric.
Senator Obama has no monopoly on demagoguery, however. Former Senator John Edwards has been playing this game longer, even if not as effectively in the political arena.
John Edwards built his own fortune in the courtroom, depicting babies with birth defects as victims of the doctors who delivered them. The cost of such demagoguery has gone far beyond the tens of millions of dollars that Edwards pocketed for himself from gullible juries.
Such lawsuits based on junk science have driven up the cost of medical care, not only directly but even more so indirectly, by leading to an increase in Caesarean births and other costly "defensive medicine" to protect doctors rather than patients.
The world of John Edwards, like the world of Barack Obama, is a world of victims, whose savior he claims to be.
What is scary is how little interest the public and the media have in the actual track record of political saviors and the cry of generic "change."
America is not czarist Russia or Iran under the shah, so that people might think that any change was bound to be for the better. Yet even in those despotic countries the changes — to communism and to the ayatollahs — made them far worse.
The time is long overdue for voters to demand specifics instead of rhetoric that turns their emotions on and their minds off.
Speaking of specifics, why don't you try having some, moron. Or, are you happy to sit in your boxer shorts, stabbing your voodoo dolls and lobbing imaginary rhetoric bombs? Please. Try to add something substantive to the discussion, or don't waste my time.
Thomas Sowell. Please.
Ouch Reacher,
That one obviously hit the mark. Someone who's bona fides far exceed yours who disagrees with you, and you respond with ad hominem attacks against me and question his legitimacy. That's brilliant. You're a keeper.
Are you a Clinton? You do virtually nothing but commit ad hominems, then recoil when they are returned, as though your fragile constitution has been damaged?
I mean, I assume I'm talking to the same person each time. Who would know?
By the way, bona fides mean crap to me if they aren't backed up.
Hello to all you anonymous posters out there - or to the one anonymous poster out there. Whichever it is.
Thomas Sowell writes, "Barack Obama says that he wants to "heal" the country while at the same time promoting the idea that all sorts of people are victims for whom he will fight."
Yet Sowell doesn't give any example of when Obama said that. He just throws it out there as if we're to take his words as gospel since he's Sowell.
That's an ad hominem attack that doesn't advance the debate at all. It's just conservative namecalling.
Whoa.. How is it that someone is a "moron" because they present an argument against a presidential candidate? Even if a portion the argument is potentially incorrect? What would be the point of engaging in dialog with you if you can't respond to a legitimate argument without an insult? I guess it would be a good way to surround yourself people who agree with you. Just keep in mind that if you suddenly find yourself at a point in your life where no one's opinions differ from yours, it doesn't mean you're right. It just means everyone else is scared of you.
P.S. I'm not "anonymous," just in case anyone was wondering.. I disagree with about 99% of Reacher's political sentiments (I like everything else he says), but I've never done so anonymously (that I can recall). ;)
Perhaps someone will correct me, but the moronic thing is taking Thomas Sowell, a bit of a windbag, at his word when he doesn't use any facts.
He only uses baseless conservative rhetoric.
I go back to his statement that Obama wants to fight for victims. In two letters, BS.
Here's a quote from Obama: “The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor, young versus old, and it’s not about black versus white. This election is about the past versus the future.”
He's not pitting rich against poor or black against white or young against old. He's doing the exact opposite of what Sowell pontificated about.
Obama is working to bring people together.
Very similar to what you said, bl, the first time I heard Obama speak, and when he first piqued my interest, was during an appearance on Oprah a couple of years ago. While discussing the *hot* issues; healthcare, war, homelessness, abortion, etc., he said, "These are not partisan issues. These are not Democratic or Republican issues. These are not conservative or liberal issues. These are people issues. The citizens of this country share similar concerns and that is what I want to address."
He elaborated on that thought but I can't come close to quoting him precisely so will leave it with the one statement that struck me and stuck with me.
Sister (amen, sister), I agree with that statement by Obama. I was thinking about that today. Mccain and Romney and their critics (especially critics of Mccain) keep firing back and forth at each other about which one of them is not truly "conservative" and it bothers me. Isn't it even a possibility that the best candidate for America has a combination of liberal, conservative, and moderate positions on important issues? Actually, I think that would be a really good sign about someone's character if they are capable of something like that. It just seems a little backwards to me that a person not fitting into a really narrow little category like republican or democrat would actually be something to criticize someone about.
Anyway, regarding the topic at hand.. I think Obama has got an appealing personality, and he is very eloquent. Kinda like Reacher! :)
Post a Comment